Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 285 posts

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#51

Post by kbenson »

oskarth wrote: post #42

> So-called non-practicing entities — or holders of a patent for a process or product that they don’t plan to develop — often use them to sue companies that would sooner settle rather than pay what can add up to $1 million by the time a case reaches a courtroom. Why on earth aren't non-practicing entity patent lawsuits outlawed? Seems like a no-brainer, and I can't imagine these firms being big enough to have any ser…

Because there's a Grey area. As an inventor, you might develop something for the express purpose of licensing it to other companies, or sell it to a company that does that for a business for a nice up front sum.

The problem is when patents last too long or thing are patented that are obvious and should have failed that criteria.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#52

Post by wglb »

ivanbakel wrote: post #46
wglb wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then perhaps you missed one of the novel ideas Cloudflare is also filing a complaint with the ethics committee . And their talking to reporters.

That's a one-sentence action that's brushed over in the article. I see nothing suggesting it's novel or effective, and I don't have enough knowledge of patent suits to decide that.

There are at least two other tactics that are novel. The article as a whole indicates that this novel approach is effective.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#53

Post by mcbits »

oskarth wrote: post #42

> So-called non-practicing entities — or holders of a patent for a process or product that they don’t plan to develop — often use them to sue companies that would sooner settle rather than pay what can add up to $1 million by the time a case reaches a courtroom. Why on earth aren't non-practicing entity patent lawsuits outlawed? Seems like a no-brainer, and I can't imagine these firms being big enough to have any ser…

I think that would have a significant impact on how research universities are funded. The University of Wisconsin recently won a $200m patent lawsuit against Apple, coincidentally (?) just as they were losing $200m of state funding.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#54

Post by blowski »

oskarth wrote: post #42

> So-called non-practicing entities — or holders of a patent for a process or product that they don’t plan to develop — often use them to sue companies that would sooner settle rather than pay what can add up to $1 million by the time a case reaches a courtroom. Why on earth aren't non-practicing entity patent lawsuits outlawed? Seems like a no-brainer, and I can't imagine these firms being big enough to have any ser…

IANAL.

However, if a university invents something, it can sell that patent. It won't itself commercialise it. Therefore they are a non-practising entity, but you can see how that encourages innovation.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#55

Post by learc83 »

pedrocr wrote: post #9
FussyZeus wrote: post #4

I've never heard a good argument against this so I'll say it here: Require that the plaintiff in this cases show demonstrable, actual , and quantifiable loss by the activity of the defendant. It seems like such a no-brainer that a business suing for damage to it's business prospects after someone stole their idea would have to actually show how it was damaged. Even allowing very flimsy evidence would do a lot to diss…

Patents are not about damages. A patent is a limited-time monopoly to an idea that you can then extract value from. Inventing something, patenting it, and then licensing it out is exactly the business model patents are supposed to enable. Companies that don't make anything are perfectly valid under this model. The real solution is to either make sure prior art and non-obviousness requirements are properly enforced or…

> A patent is a limited-time monopoly to an idea that you can then extract value from

That's the incentive given to the inventor. In exchange society is supposed to eventually get access to an idea that anyone can make use of.

There's a huge breakdown with this system though--the majority of software patents aren't written in a way that would allow someone to reproduce them. Or as you've pointed out they're so obvious that they would have existed without the patent monopoly grant.

If society isn't benefiting, there's no point.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#56

Post by criddell »

oskarth wrote: post #42

> So-called non-practicing entities — or holders of a patent for a process or product that they don’t plan to develop — often use them to sue companies that would sooner settle rather than pay what can add up to $1 million by the time a case reaches a courtroom. Why on earth aren't non-practicing entity patent lawsuits outlawed? Seems like a no-brainer, and I can't imagine these firms being big enough to have any ser…

Wouldn't that basically eliminate groups like the MPEG? They don't create software or hardware, but they license the technology to everybody else. Should they be forced to compete with their licensees?

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#57

Post by frandroid »

notyourday wrote: post #13

It is all about finding a correct pressure point. Long time ago certain Philadelphia area law firms decided to represent vegan protesters that created a major mess in a couple of high end restaurants. A certain flamboyant owner of one the restaurants targeted decided to have a good time applying his version of asymmetric warfare. The next partners from those law firm showed up to wine and dine their clients in the es…

That's pretty weak.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#58

Post by rictic »

siliconc0w wrote: post #33
tracker1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, if it weren't for the stupidity of the patent system, I don't know that Cloudflare would even have the patents. Has Cloudflare ever initiated patent litigation against anyone? The fact is that most patents for things that are "invented" but entirely virtually don't really deserve patent protection. Rarely is there significant research, expense or tooling to implement. Patents on software, processes and most…

Even if the companies only hoard these to defend themselves when they go under their patents get picked up by NPEs. It's like nuclear weapons, MAD kinda works but then a state fails and now you have terrorists with nukes. The answer is disarmament. If you want to enlist the help of the community you should have to pull a Tesla and open your patents or at the very least advocate for the abolishment of software and pro…

Just so we're clear though, the disarmament that we should aim for is to change physics so that nuclear weapons don't work at all, right? Because that's an option, we could change how the patent system works.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#59

Post by mobilefriendly »

prutschman wrote: post #47
jgrahamc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has Cloudflare ever initiated patent litigation against anyone? No, we have not.

Have you ever threatened to, or alluded to your ability to do so, to obtain commercial negotiating leverage in a context other than defending the company from the threat of a patent suit?

Who cares? Cloudflare are a practicing entity, presumably with legitimate patents. They aren't necessarily at war with software patents as a concept, just the obvious abuse.
Post reply on HN